The Reputation of Science, has already been devastated,,, but Warmists are blind to it! This reminds me, to look up all those failed Alarmist predictions ; they should be in the Guinness world records by now…

If you read the article the prediction was that wineries could be harmed by the end of the century. I’m sure that we can agree that we aren’t quite to the end of the century yet. And we could perhaps also agree that that makes this article pretty much rubbish.

If the California wine industry is set on a 95 year path to devastation, it seems unlikely that ten years in to it, production has not declined even a little, but instead has more than doubled.

Then again, (if increasing CO2 causes global warming), it seems unlikely that after 18 years of massive (largest ever recorded) increases in CO2 that the global average temperatures would not have risen.

Koop in VA : This doomsday prediction, as with almost all Global Warming related predictions ; generally fail spectacularly. Obviously , the growth trend in the industry is contrary to everything stated by Alarmist’s thus far. We have no choice but to interim evaluate the progress ; we will not be here at the end of the Century… that’s an inconvenient truth.

At this point I have lost all respect for the university where I got my degree. They have come out (very loudly) with some really crackpot science lately. I used to recommend them to kids looking to go to college. Now I suggest learning a trade instead.

Yes Gail, but all is not lost ; there are also, many honest Scientists like yourself. But I don’t know how some institutions can recover ; they have not assessed consequence with reputation ; the mind-set has changed with their leadership.

DD More : Playing a devil’s advocate with a facetious twist, makes it more interesting.
We could also consider, the devil we know and the devil we don’t. With AGW, evil comes in many forms, there are also known known’s and known unknowns involving alarmists within PseudoScience. On the issue of devastation to a collective reputation,
they can only build from ground zero ; you make a good point.

There should be some sort of board of examiners that should award people the right to call themselves scientists, the way doctors have. Before medical boards, every sort of quack in the world could hang a shingle and call himself a doctor. These idiots are not scientists.

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective controlSource

Every once in a while someone like Howard Zinn can let a bit of truth actually slip out. And lets face it. History IS a weapon. (That was the point I was trying to bring up.)

Look at the way the story of Thanksgiving has been rewritten. Originally it was a warning against socialism and an example of the advantages of capitalism. Now it is a “we all can live together in peace” fairy tale that makes me want to lose my breakfast.

… Over the last quarter-century, historians have by and large ceased writing about the role of ruling elites in the country’s evolution. Or if they have taken up the subject, they have done so to argue against its salience for grasping the essentials of American political history. Yet there is something peculiar about this recent intellectual aversion, even if we accept as true the beliefs that democracy, social mobility, and economic dynamism have long inhibited the congealing of a ruling stratum. This aversion has coincided, after all, with one of the largest and fastest-growing disparities in the division of income and wealth in American history….Neglecting the powerful had not been characteristic of historical work before World War II.

Gail
Perhaps you know that this day in 1789 is when President G. Washington first announced a day of Thanksgiving to be observed on Nov. 26th. And then on this same day in 1863 President Lincoln announced that a day of Thanksgiving would be observed on the last Thursday of November.

Ever read or listen to Rush Limbaugh give his true Thanksgiving story? If not you should.

Exactly. Without a board certification, patent clerks fantasize about physics, and amateurs with geology and electrical degrees putz around in climatology. It’s a bloody mess.

We need the authorities to step in and have board-certified scientists control the access to their professions. A 10-year internship for a board-certified climatologist at one of the major institutions would weed out the current crop of quacks.

Not to put words in Gail’s mouth, but you may want to read her quotes about governments above.

She’s spot on.

You’re assuming a well-meaning and competent government (your “authorities” and “board certification”). Unfortunately, your view of government is likely much too trusting and rosy. Maybe based on “the way things used to be?”

This ain’t your father’s government.

The US Federal government regulatory function is now, nearly uniformly, controlled by Politically Correct Progressives. They have goals that are directly contrary to the needs and interests of the general public. If you’re unsure about this, see examples of the following agencies’ actions: EPA, IRS, Education, Federal Reserve Board, and many others.

Any “certification board” would be drawn from the ranks of the ruling PC-Progs.

True, it is possible but I get easily confused this time of day. Can someone remind me what are the degrees held by our host? I just know that uppity patent clerks get on everybody’s nerves and make a royal mess in sciences. Everything would be neat and orderly without these people.

Colorado,
“Einstein was a pure establishment figure for the vast majority of his career.”

Einstein’s full-blown academic career began in 1905, when he was granted a doctorate degree. But even before that, while working in the patent office, he was a full-time academic, publishing papers from 1900 onwards.

In 1908, Einstein was appointed to a post as a university lecturer.

So, yes, the vast majority of Einstein’s career, 1908-1955, he was an establishment figure of the scientific community.

At the end of his career, Einstein vigorously opposed rival theories and approaches to his pet theories. He quashed many up-and-coming physicists’ approaches to solutions to various physics issues.

I didn’t want to knock Morgan too hard for suggesting a board certification for scientists. It’s asinine but I thought his comment was one of those things we write in frustration and post it before we realize what we did. We can’t erase it and it stays put. Now, I’ve written some stupid thing myself so I thought a little friendly sarcasm was appropriate and knowing Gail’s views quite well, I rattled her chain, too. I thought my language was clear but what do I know? I don’t use /sarc tags—others can do what they want but I think it’s silly. It’s just like people making an off-color remark and crying right away: “Just kidding! Just kidding!” They should have shut up in the first place.

You took my sarcasm seriously and responded as if I was in favor of that absurd permit proposal. I understand, sometimes I make the same mistake myself. It always happens because I care about something a lot. I get very serious and swallow some jester’s hook, line and sinker. When I finally smarten up it’s time to fess up to my earnest idiocy, have a chuckle and move along. It’s good to not take ourselves too seriously.

From one point of view, given todays society, having a PS (Professionally certified Scientist) with the same legal standing as a P.E (Professional Engineer) might not be such a bad idea.

I found out through a lawyer many years ago that a scientist has no legal standing and pretty much has to do what a corporations tell him to. A PE on the other hand has legal protections and obligations when it comes to honesty.

The Board of Ethical Review is a panel of engineering ethics experts that has served as the profession’s guide through ethical dilemmas…

The engineering profession’s emphasis on ethics dates back to the end of the 19th century. In 1946, NSPE released its Canons of Ethics for Engineers and Rules of Professional Conduct, which evolved to the current Code of Ethics, adopted in 1964. While these statements of general principles served as a guide, many engineers requested interpretations of how the Canons and Rules would apply to specific circumstances. These requests ultimately led to the creation of the BER in 1954….

…as a result of changes in the law, especially antitrust laws and commercial-free speech laws, the emphasis shifted to professional competence issues, such as the signing and sealing of work, whistleblowing, conflicts of interest, and the engineer’s obligation to protect the public health and safety.